How does it feel to know that people like this not only exist, but also post on the same site as you?

He is lacking any kind of view and has no idea of what he's talking about. It's not a matter of opinion - he's objectively wrong.

>be op
>get utterly btfo in a thread
>make a new thread to try to get anons to stroke his ego
>gets utterly btfo yet again

its time to kys senpai

Contrarianism stops being funny when you're an adult you know.

Let's imagine for a second that 80% of people in 19 century were literate enough to read our darling classics. How do you think, were they still able to attend balls and other upper class places?

>”ideology”

Stopped reading, stick your politics up your fag ass and get off my board

Not the guy you responded that's not quite true. It only stops being funny as you become more obedient and conformist. I say not quite true instead of untrue because some people's idea of growing up is conforming.

triggered

What do you mean by conform? When you conform to what exactly?

Just regular people? Maybe half of them. The other half is just assholes or shitheads like the one OP posted.

Good post but he says fuck a lot which makes me thinks he likes reddit a lot and reddit is gay.

It's just a strong opinion in language that would be strong itrw but here is merely one over par for the course. I don't think it characterizes the deliverer at all except with respect to the opinion as received. Present a decent counter argument and youll no doubt be presented with a tone somewhat mitigated. Happens here all the time. Or did.

I was already foolish enough to humour someone . Here

It's no wonder that Veeky Forums has gone to hell over the last year and a half. Contrarian shitposting is the ultimate intellectual cowardice - you "ironically" espouse and defend nonsense you don't believe in to 'bait' others, without ever having to put your actual views on the line. You get validation from 'winning' arguments (aka, making your opponent look stupid) without having your own views examined and critiqued. This leads to a large community of people with unexamined beliefs and inflated opinions of their own intelligence.

That's right. Become an adult and stop thinking for yourself, work, eat, sleep and sub-consciously consume others agendas.

I can't consume agendas or form any of my own apart from wanting nothing other than shitposting, fapping, a qt gf and occasionally reading

Guys 100% correct

Damn he's right. wtf i hate books now

> oh no an anonymous message board populated by 17 year old autistic weebs isn't the best place to have an intellectual discussion

retard

terrifying image, is that from a terrifying movie?

He's writing for the lowest common denominator and doing so proudly.

Never min, managed to find the souce, disappointing.

>implying any medium to ever exist in the past, present, or future could possibly ever even dream of coming close to replicating the awe filled wonder that is my imagination and the constructs of my subconscious

Fuck that user and fuck you, too.

But how do you know OP that the entire post isnt fabricated to simply get a rise out of people. That it is just there so people make threads like this and in return said persons get their intended reactions, hundreds of angry people that are angry at words on the internet.

Literally every medium is based on your imagination retard

He may not be right, but it's true that books are not nearly as valuable anymore when it comes to describing sensations, thanks to technological progress and sociopolitical changes, both of which are evolutionarily interlinked, and both of which influence where most artistically talented visionaries will focus their efforts (since the function of the artist is to appeal to a group, and demand becomes higher by new things necessarily, therefore there will be more talented artists surrounding things like movies than there will be books). And you can see how writing has changed since the 19th century, especially in the past ~50 years, as a result: less poetic and dryer, less descriptive and briefer. And you can see how standards have changed as part of that evolutionary shift of technology and sociopolitics, because we continue to have books which are successful, despite their lower qualities.

No, it's not. You God damned fucking unsavable imbecile.

If you read what I am about to write in the following quotes, "The man stepped through the door into a room filled with light. A room that was not his home and yet he felt as close to it as he's ever been. He went to the window to view the property. He thought to himself, 'Here, finally, is a fitting place to die."

There is not an director, costume designer, set designer, computer animator, fucking anything on planet earth that could ever recreate or replace the place that pops into my head after I read that. Ever.

I mean, Jesus fuck, is this board honestly and truly filled with teenage cumstains who are half brain dead?

He is objectively right, not in his comparison of literature to visual media, but in his comparison of literature as a zeitgeist.

An author who cannot deliver his objective, whatever that may be: plot, tone, setting, dialogue, narrative, characterization, description, whatever... efficiently is a writer with poor prose. If it takes you 900 words to set up one "scene" you're just not doing it right. And since language and communication is built on the idea of transferring ideas, its not subjective, but objective that taking too long to get a point across is poor. Some people subjectively like that more, and that's fine, those audiences have those pieces to enjoy. But, and this bears repeating, that is an artistic abuse of the art form, and should not, and is not in modern times, the standard.

> There is not an director, costume designer, set designer, computer animator, fucking anything on planet earth that could ever recreate or replace the place that pops into my head after I read that. Ever.

And here you're contradicting yourself. Because when you watch a movie you are well aware all these processes exist yet you use your imagination to construct a notion that the man isn't just an actor that walked on a set but a living breathing soul with a consciousness contingently related to where you last seen him in an actual universe rather than just on another set shot days/months before or even after this scene.
You're a complete idiot to think there is something magic going on in words and its not simply just different means to engage your imagination

No, I don't. God damn. This is some impressive bullshit. Jesus Christ you're incredibly stupid if you can not possibly see the difference between being an audience member witnessing another's production versus reading words and being forced to create in your head. I feel horrible for your mother that your father raised such a simpleton. Though I doubt your father stuck around.

Where can I find places that are good for intellectual discussion that don't have any sort of hivemind?

>they truly had no idea how something looked, they needed a description to visualise it
Jesus Christ.

Ah, the good ol'your mother is a whore argument, i see you've lurked the chans for quite a while sir, quite a long while indeed!

The level of discourse on Veeky Forums has been dropping for some time now. There was a period between when the Christposters from 2015 started to fade away, and before all the political bullshit moved in. Now there's so much partisan screed on the board that I barely post anymore. Why bother when no one is going to reply to a well-considered post on Hawthorne, while bullshit Politic garbage masquerading as literate discussion pushes it off the main page.

There was a time when I would have Unironically considered this board the best place on the Internet to discuss literature. Now the level of discourse is reddit-tier. I've moved on to Eightchan.

I don't understand the appeal of Literature in our current times at all honestly, I just come here for philosophy and discussion about it.

Literature as a medium has gotten stale over the years and the boundaries are pushed in every way except the use of language with experimental books, and while the main reason for people here to read books like Ulysses or Hamlet are both the use of the English language and a good story, I've experienced far more interesting ideas in books from Nietzsche or Hegel, because they were dedicated to something specific as knowledge, not in trying to excel at so many aspects like literature.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Literature is a bad medium, but in this day and age the storytelling and world building aspect of literature is done in a more 'sensory' (maybe not the best word) way by movies or videogames, so it's hard to see how can literature win the fight in the long run, specially with kids. Meanwhile language is being deformed and explored in a lighting speed way by the use of the Internet, take this with a grain of salt, but memes are THE way to get to the limits of language right now, not in the most beautiful way I might add, however most of the "beautiful" expositions of our languages were done in the XIX Century and prior, so it's hard for new books to excel at it.

Sure, Literature holds value, but I can see how it is stale as a medium and how there are many others that can do it's job just as well. A revival might come in the future, but for that there needs to be genius that sees something that literature does better than anything else. I even believe papers will get outshined by academics making videos or big dissertations a la TedTalks (just look at Peterson or Zizek), it's an easier and less time consuming way to get your ideas across.

We have too little time in this age, so brevity is what everyone looks on their mediums, sadly literature has a hard time with the more technologic ones. I think there's a bit of snobism coming for Veeky Forums when it comes to defending the beauty of literature, instead of seeking ways to reform it for the future.

I've caught a few 90 IQ pot smoking underachievers in highschool saying more or less the same thing. It tends to be extremely obvious that their declaring books obsolete is only a justification for their functional illiteracy and nobody takes them seriously because they get Ds in every class

It's easier for them to argue online because they can pretend to be intelligent and educated here

The primary purpose of literature is not to tell entertaining stories.

>I even believe papers will get outshined by academics making videos or big dissertations a la TedTalks (just look at Peterson or Zizek), it's an easier and less time consuming way to get your ideas across.
lmfao, no one serious believes this, you can usually read in 20 minutes what a professor takes a 90 minute class to teach. written material also goes into much more thorough detail than oral presentations typically do. reading is by far the most efficient way to absorb information

I know, I think it's about aesthetic narrative, but my argument is that the most aesthetic narratives have been done in the most classic use of the languages (at least in most of the Western languages I know of). I feel there's little innovation in this regard and it's hard for people of today to compare to Joyce or Cervantes.

So literature tried to explore more experimental uses of the language and it succeeded for the most part, until the Internet came around and it became a medium that has collectively experimented with language and pushed the boundaries in extreme ways. So in that sense I don't know how can literature find a niche that will help it excel at something novel.

>An author who cannot deliver his objective, whatever that may be: plot, tone, setting, dialogue, narrative, characterization, description

None of those things are ends in of themselves, they are simply means towards ends.

>just words

There are no 'just words' - words inherently have meaning. If they don't have meaning, then they are simply incoherent noises.

Nothing is a more one-to-one representation of someone's thoughts than literature. People generally can't articulate as robustly in person as they can on paper given that paper gives them time to work on their expression. The reason "the book was better" is such a cliché is because an emotion on an actor's face isn't able to contain the same depth as a paragraph from a great writer.

The primary purpose of literature is not 'aesthetic narrative' either. You are confusing the means as the end.

I'm not saying it will be done in the next 30 years because we will still believe the institution of papers as something we need to preserve, but in a more technological society in 100 years it might be a better option depending on how much time people have access to. Sure written material can get into more detail, but that's not what the general populace wants, just look at Wikipedia for a moment (yes, it's consumed not by academics but by the public) and general ideas is what the average person wants to discuss or are asked to learn in education. How long until this process goes upwards and gets into academy? People thought academy was impenetrable and sacrosant for so long and the current state of it is far more "efficient" and dumbed-down than it used to be.

Reading is far more time consuming depending on the topic though, I think that when it comes to an abstract concept a video helps put it on more tangible terms, but if it's something like Biology then reading would be more helpful maybe(?). I think topics like Mathematics might be explained through videos or whatever we have in the future rather than books.

How can filmed emotions better articulate the inner lives of fictional characters than words can? The emotions on an actor's face are interpreted subjectively, and the viewer has to determine what it's trying to convey and why. Books can draw use so many more shades using words.

>Sure written material can get into more detail
You concede that written words are capable of a sort of depth that extemporaneous speeches aren't, and you're still okay with the death of the literature?

>but that's not what the general populace wants
How is that relevant? Literature was never a majority interest, especially in pre-literate times.

You assume that the act of reading consists only in scanning information. That is the simplest and lowest form of reading. That is how you read a travel brochure or a biology textbook. You don't read Plato, Shakespeare or Coleridge the same way you read a travel brochure.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Read_a_Book

But at the same time some movies are far more interesting than the books because of the visuals and how it can express a more abstract and ambiguous feeling. Take Apocalypse Now as an example. On one hand you say that an author can go in great detail to explain one instant, but on the other hand seeing that instant showing all it's content on a few frames is maybe even more powerful to the audience of the XXI Century.

The further we get into the future and the more perfected the mediums become (or even video games, who knows), maybe we might see better one-to-one representations without the need of actors.

I know it's hard to see how it might happen, but considering how Literature has fallen behind many other mediums in terms of the use of technology AND the fact that the expectations of people are different now, I can expect it being outshined.

The appeal of visual media is its passivity. Literature is capable of the same sort of abstraction that film is, but it takes much more concentration to consume. That's its appeal.

>Reading is far more time consuming depending on the topic though, I think that when it comes to an abstract concept a video helps put it on more tangible terms, but if it's something like Biology then reading would be more helpful maybe(?). I think topics like Mathematics might be explained through videos or whatever we have in the future rather than books.
lol, no. it sounds as though you're just grasping at straws. the "advantage" of video tends to be that it's dumbed down and that consequentely, retards find it easier to sit down and watch it to the end (not without pausing every so often to look at other tabs). reading is a quicker way to absorb information, it's just harder because you actually have to pay attention

Wrong. Your conception of film as glorified theater comes from your own ignorance.

What you consider interesting is entirely subjective. Visuals might interest you, but they are of no interest to me. My interest lies in how well a medium can articulate ideas, concepts and meanings - books do that with great depth and detail, while film and television only do it at the simplest and shallowest level, if at all.

I don't read books for the same reasons or purposes I watch films or play video games.

>seeing that instant showing all it's content on a few frames is maybe even more powerful to the audience of the XXI Century.
you should read Storm of Steel, specifically the chapter on the battle of the Somme

>On one hand you say that an author can go in great detail to explain one instant, but on the other hand seeing that instant showing all it's content on a few frames
But descriptions aren't the appeal of literature. The the ability to articulate the inner-life of a character through focalization is what makes literature great, and it's something that visual media can't do.

Also

>I know it's hard to see how it might happen

Unfortunately, it's all to easy to see that this is happening and has been happening for years.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death

Your conception of literature is just the naturalist descriptions of omnipresent narrators you saw in Victorian fiction. The notion that a film can show any form of inner-dialogue isn't true.

It probably can't, but on my experience it can be so much powerful to see the emotion than reading it. I can feel sadness reading the hardships of a character, but looking at an actor that represents those emotions is a breathtaking experience to me. At the same time, books also have the subjective aspect of interpreting what the author meant, even in more modern books the author purposefully leaves very ambiguous paragraphs so that people have to fill the blanks.

It's not as easy to say that books are the superior way to look into the mind and soul of a character, because even then we see it from the perspective of the character who (almost always in XIX C and prior) tries to be a sympathetic figure.

Why shouldn't I be okay with it? It's a job of Literature to either adapt and find better ways to sustain itself, if it can't, then it deserves to die. We will conform to what best suits us as a medium, not the other way around.

It might have more depth, but at the same time future mediums might find ways to supplement the depth. I'm not willing to put forward an exact way because who knows what happens in 100 years, but if we could transfer knowledge by the use of SD cards to our brain, then Literature is going to be even more niche than it is now.

Can't you explain it on a post? I don't have much time and I want to keep the discussion going.

What? I never said anything about literature.

>Can't you explain it on a post?

Reading is a skill with different levels that requires training and practice, much like carpentry or playing chess. It would be absurd to think that one could explain how to teach proficiency in a skill through a single imageboard post. Not everything can be encapsulated in bite-sized chunks.

>do you really need 900 pages to tell a compelling story?
This seems to imply that he thinks the only purpose of literature is to "tell a story." He overlooks all the techniques and asides that, while maybe not 100% necessary to telling a compelling story, are a huge part of why people read books.

>but on my experience it can be so much powerful to see the emotion than reading it.
Sorry, but this is some serious pleb shit right here. In film all you see is the emotion, which is the end result of a series conscious and subconscious thoughts all interacting in unique ways to elicit a physical response. In literature you actually read the train of thoughts that lead to that particular emotion, which is a sort of empathetic closeness you can't get in any other media. A closeness you can't even achieve through sex. You're literally walking in someone else's shoes, to use the cliché; you're inhabiting their brain.

>It's a job of Literature to either adapt and find better ways to sustain itself, if it can't, then it deserves to die.
The only data you give of as an example of literature's inability to adapt is the fact that people are less interested in it now than they were in the early 20th century. If popularity is synonymous with value in your eyes, then let's talk about the great achievements of the beloved Michael Bay.

But even if value and popularity are somewhat synonymous, you still haven't explained why a minority interest without much practical value can't just exist per se. You think that it's somehow the duty of the creators in that medium to appeal to as many people as possible.

Also, there's something ugly about the way film uses the physical attractiveness of its protagonists to elicit even greater sympathy from its audience. The way it presents good-looking people as being particularly worthy of a sympathetic portrait betrays its shallowness as a medium.

You are looking at videos as if they aren't going to change in any way in the future. My argument is that at some point videos (or whatever we have at that time) will become more technological and advanced that they will be better as a way to expand knowledge than the writing medium. They are dumbed down versions now, yes, but in the future who knows. Right now I can see some video essays on Youtube that have the same level of content as a blog post or a short text, so why would it be limited in the future?

It's not like the more technological mediums aren't going to change in the future, even movies have the whole 4D aspect added to it nowadays. But sadly literature and books have been stale for over 500 years or so (considering the industrial press as the last big advancement), maybe ebooks can be added too, but were they a game changer? Maybe it's too soon to tell but I believe it isn't.

I think you are mystifying literature a little too much. However my point is that if a medium starts to lose popularity it will become a close niche, when that happens the people of the future that want to express themselves will look at all the mediums available and will probably choose either the more popular (so that their art reaches/touches more people), the one they are best versed in or the one that better suits what they are trying to express. If Literature is at disadvantage compared to others, then it will not attract the best talent and will start to lose even more potential. It's not like there's no competition or that people are born with an incredible inclination to Literature.

Look, we used to make paintings in caves as a medium and then it died (or rather it transformed into a more complex and almost unrecognizable way) because as a society we moved to the point where it wasn't practical to do so. The same thing will happen to books. Neither of us will see that happen, but don't try to make books something greater than they are.

Also your way to think that something is pleb, bringing Bay, etc... might be a way to discredit the whole post and start throwing shit.

A medium doesn't die due to a lack of popularity, it dies due to a lack of use and function. No one would claim that Western art music is dead, even if contemporary artists working in the medium are unknown to the vast majority of people who can't afford to visit a decent opera house. Broadway musicals don't have the reach of even something like poetry, yet as Hamilton proves they're not close to dying. A medium that caters to a niche can coexist, and even thrive, alongside popular media. Literature doesn't have to be ubiquitous to attract great artists. So even if I were to concede that literature is losing its place as the ultimate narrative art form when it comes to popularity, that doesn't suggest that it should attempt to cater to non-readers, or that the power of literature is diminished by its rarity.

>we used to make paintings in caves as a medium and then it died
That's a terrible analogy. Cave paintings are more of a genre than a medium. Look at what painting become thousands of years later. Painting was only diminished by film, which did what painters have been attempting to do for thousands of years up to that point: faithfully represent reality. Painting had a second life through movements like impressionism, but it no longer retained its old power. That's likely not going to happen to literature because film still can't really reproduce the inner lives of its characters visually. Well-written dialogue and narration might get close, but that's the literary, not visual aspect of film. I don't think that a script is any less of a literary work than an audiobook.

People would actually spend a good long time getting into books and tldr yeah he's right. Victorian-era Gothics were self-indulgences for people who didn't have to do other stuff and wanted to hear little details as part of fantasy.

>XIX
Just say fucking 19 pseud

What's the primary purpose of literature then? You should know.

See

Why would anyone write a novel instead of a philosophical paper then? The latter fits the same criteria and does it in a much more intuitive way.

Literature includes plays, poems and essays as well as novels.

>The latter fits the same criteria and does it in a much more intuitive way.

That's just not true. Plato didn't only write philosophical essays, he also wrote fictional dialogues. The medium shapes the message and how it is understood.

To further my point: The Bible didn't include parables for the sake of their plots. Seneca didn't write his plays for their entertainment value. Nietzsche didn't choose the novel format to express some of his most profound ideas without good reason.

The following couplet from 'A Dream of Red Mansions' by Cao Xueqin says it all:

"Truth becomes fiction when the fiction's true;
Real becomes not-real where the unreal's real."

He's right

This was posted on /g/, 8ch barely gets any traffic though

>My argument is that at some point videos (or whatever we have at that time) will become more technological and advanced that they will be better as a way to expand knowledge than the writing medium.
this isn't an argument, it's pure, extremely vague speculation

>I mean, Jesus fuck, is this board honestly and truly filled with teenage cumstains who are half brain dead?

someone needs a bubba of milk and a nap I think

everyone else can watch this

vimeo.com/87523667